Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

REFORMING AMERICA’S CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Refocusing on Delivering

Results, Aligning with Our

Values, and Reducing the

Burden on Taxpayers

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

2

REFORMING AMERICA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

REFOCUSING ON DELIVERING RESULTS, ALIGNING WITH OUR VALUES, AND REDUCING THE BURDEN

ON TAXPAYERS

INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars in our society today can be found in a criminal justice

system in serious need of reform. As mayor of Newark, I have watched as my police arrest, re-arrest, and

then re-arrest again, sending the same person for another trip through a revolving door system that not

only largely fails to rehabilitate, but too often makes reoffending commonplace and most definitely is not

helping to make our communities safer. The many problems in the criminal justice system have not

defeated our efforts in Newark — while there is much work left to do, since my Administration began its

work with the Newark community, murders are down 17 percent, shootings are down 27 percent, rapes

are down 38 percent, aggravated assaults are down 12 percent, thefts are down 11 percent, and auto thefts

are down 26 percent. But that progress has been won with the wind in our face and does not account for

the thousands of lives negatively impacted by backward policies in our criminal justice system.

It is clear from what we have seen in Newark, and in cities across the country, that we can do better. That

we can create a system that makes our communities safer and spends significantly fewer taxpayer dollars

to deliver that safety; A system that does not waste the potential and productivity of so many of our

citizens and better reflects our values, treating every American justly; A system that brings together

communities and law enforcement and that restores the strength of families, stopping, rather than

perpetuating, the intergenerational cycle of incarceration.

That is not happening now. We waste massive amounts of money on strategies that make our

communities less, not more, safe. We squander human potential. We emphasize punishment over

rehabilitation for low-level, non-violent crimes. We have created a system that fosters disparate racial and

socio-economic impacts. Even more disturbing are the impacts on inmates’ children. Not only do they

lose their incarcerated parent’s income and other direct support, but innocent children who have one or

both of their parents in prison also suffer trauma, social stigma, and destruction of their familial

relationships. In fact, a national, longitudinal study of approximately 5,000 children born between 1998

and 2000 found that children whose fathers were incarcerated were four times more likely to face contact

with the child welfare system.1

And we have done better, but there is so much common sense progress remaining to be claimed. Driving

reform here in Newark has been a broad-based coalition, including, for example, the Manhattan Institute,

a conservative think tank. We worked across the aisle because this issue is not a left or right problem. It’s

a common sense problem. It’s a basic question of continuing to fail, or moving forward. It’s a question of

making our communities safer, or continuing to waste law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars.

1 “Fragile Families Research Brief: Parental Incarceration and Child Wellbeing in Fragile Families,” Bendheim-

Thoman Center for Research on Child Well-Being, Princeton University Press (April 2008),

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Special%20Interest%20Areas/Children%20with%20Incarcerated%20Par

ents/ParentalIncarcerationandChildWellbeinginFragi/fragile%20families%20brief_2.pdf

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

3

Our cities and towns cannot do this alone. The federal government must reform the system where it

controls it and do more to support innovation at the state and local level.

If we all come together to banish stigma and myth, and instead focus on fact and outcomes, we will do

better. The result will be safer communities, savings for taxpayers, stronger children and families, and a

criminal justice system that reflects American values.

TAKING ACTION

I. REDUCING PRISON ENTRIES FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS

Low-level, nonviolent drug offenders comprise more than 50 percent of the federal prison population, and

the number of drug offenders in state facilities has increased thirteen-fold since 1980.2 We now spend

more than $51 billion annually to fight the War on Drugs,3 a war that has proven to be largely ineffective.

Our sentencing regime for drug-related crimes is in need of reform. President Obama and Attorney

General Holder deserve real praise for taking on this fight, but in order to achieve further progress, we

should:

a. Increase federal funding for proven, evidence-based programs like drug and community

courts, that divert low-level drug offenders from prison. Drug courts have been shown to

significantly decrease recidivism and save taxpayers money. A drug court is a specialized

model that moves non-violent drug offenders from the traditional court system to an

alternative model, where the offender receives treatment, services, and rehabilitation, instead

of a harsh sentence. In 2012, New Jersey established a $2.5 million pilot program to expand

drug courts throughout the state. Sending a person to drug court in New Jersey costs about

$13,000 less than sending a person to prison.4

Here in Newark, we developed a Youth Court, which engages young people in the criminal

justice process, where youth help their peers receive the help they need to avoid reoffending.

We also established a veterans’ court and the first community court in the state of New Jersey.

These alternative court models provide municipal judges with increased sentencing options

for nonviolent offenders so they may help address the underlying issues driving criminal

behavior and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The problem-solving approach to justice

has also improved public perceptions of justice in Newark and in countless other

municipalities all over the world which have embraced the model.

b. Facilitate a structured, national conversation about the decriminalization of marijuana:

Each year more than 700,000 people are arrested for marijuana possession. When arrests

occur, African Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possessing marijuana

2 E. Anne Carson and William J. Sabol, “Prisoners in 2011,” Bureau of Justice Statistics (Dec. 17, 2012),

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4559. 3 “Drug War Statistics,” The Drug Policy Alliance (accessed on Aug. 27, 2013), http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-

war-statistics. 4 Stuart Rabner, et al., “A Model for Success: New Jersey’s Adult Drug Courts,” New Jersey Courts (Oct. 2010),

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/drugcourt/DrugCourtReport.pdf.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

4

than whites, even though both populations use the drugs at similar rates.5 Many states no

longer strictly adhere to the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I

drug. This classification declares that marijuana has no medicinal qualities, and is more likely

to be abused than cocaine. The racial disparities when enforcing the law as well as state

movements toward decriminalization highlight the need to reexamine our policies.

It is time for us to have a candid, structured conversation about the legal status of, and law

enforcement focus on, marijuana. This discussion must bring together police, prosecutors,

public defenders, public health experts, academia, community leaders, and other stakeholders

to consider whether our approach to drug policy is fostering strong communities and making

us safer. Members of both parties must consider whether current national drug policy

encourages the effective stewardship of law enforcement resources, and if there are better

ways to achieve desired outcomes.

II. PROMOTE JUSTICE AND INTEGRITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW

We did not plan to create a criminal justice system that incarcerates over 2.2 million Americans, but our

actions along the way, taken together, have led us down this destructive path.6 The prevailing “tough on

crime” policy-making climate that emerged in the 1980s has taken away much prosecutorial and judicial

authority, inhibiting just and commensurate charges and sentencing. Imprisonment continues to be

concentrated among poor, minority males. Today, 1 in every 15 black males is in prison or jail, compared

to 1 in 106 white males.7 To address racial disparities in incarceration, and mass incarceration more

broadly, we should:

a. Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses. Research shows that

mandatory minimum sentences have virtually no deterrent effect on crime.8

Instead,

mandatory minimums impose disproportionately harsh sentences at tremendous cost to

taxpayers and often with an effect counter to the interests of public safety.9 To address this,

Congress should pass the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 and the Smarter Sentencing Act of

2013. These bills would give judges more discretion to sentence federal offenders below the

mandatory minimum and would reduce the length of mandatory sentences for nonviolent

drug crimes, respectively. But even more needs to be done. Mandatory minimum sentences

for low-level, non-violent drug offenses should be eliminated entirely.

5 “The War on Marijuana In Black and White,” American Civil Liberties Union (June 2013),

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf. 6 Supra note 2.

7 Sophia Kerby, “The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States,”

Center for American Progress (Mar. 13, 2012),

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-

of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/. 8 Id.

9 James Austin, et. al., “Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment,” Justice Strategies (Apr.

16, 2013),

http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/Charting%20a%20New%20Justice%20Reinvestment

.pdf.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

5

b. Eliminate the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. The crack-to-powder

cocaine disparity has contributed to severe racial discrepancies in our incarceration practices,

as blacks are more likely to be arrested for crack-related crimes.10

In 2010, President Obama

signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law, which decreased the sentencing disparity between

crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1,11

and also eliminated the five-year mandatory

minimum prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. This was a significant step in the

right direction, and Congress should now act to fully correct the disparity.

c. Prosecutors and law enforcement should do more to consider disparate racial and ethnic

impacts. In all areas of law enforcement, from training to prosecution, law enforcement

officers and prosecutors make decisions that can have disparate impacts based on race. We

should require the DOJ to study this issue, as recommended in the Justice Integrity Acts of

2009 and 2011 and outlined by the Brennan Center for Justice,12

to determine the full extent

of these disparate impacts. While the majority of law enforcement and prosecutors are

sensitive to these issues and dutifully serve racially- and ethnically-diverse communities

every day, they may—often unintentionally—employ practices that lead to disparate impacts.

There is much to do: we should be promoting a law enforcement community that is ethnically

diverse and offers ongoing disparities training, support prosecutors that listen to community

members about disparate treatment, and champion legislation in sentencing reform that

addresses these disparities in our federal criminal justice system.

d. Develop incentives and training for federal prosecutors to find alternative metrics of

success. We should be promoting performance measurement systems that focus more on

public safety outcomes, costs to taxpayers, and recidivism rates.13

Unfortunately now, the

typical performance measures for prosecutors focus primarily on convictions, incarcerations,

placements in treatment facilities, alternative programs, and restitution.

III. MODERNIZE THE WAY WE INCARCERATE

More than 680,000 inmates are released from federal and state prisons every year.14

Without proper

preparation while serving their sentences, many will re-offend and return to prison. We must invest in

education and skill-building, drug treatment, and facilitation of family communication to ensure that the

formerly incarcerated can successfully reintegrate into their families and communities. We should:

10

“Special Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy,” United States Sentencing Commission

(May 2007). 11

“Fair Sentencing Act,” American Civil Liberties Union (accessed on Aug. 26, 2013), https://www.aclu.org/fair-

sentencing-act. 12

James Johnson, et. al., “Racial Disparities in Federal Prosecutions,” Brennan Center for Justice (2010),

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/ProsecutorialDiscretion_report.pdf?nocdn=1. 13

Stephanos Bibas, “The Need for Prosecutorial Discretion,” 19 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. Law Rev. 369 (2010);

Stephanos Bibas, “Rewarding Prosecutors for Performance,” 6 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 441 (2009);

Stephanos Bibas, “Prosecutorial Regulation Versus Prosecutorial Accountability,” 157 U. PA. L. REV. 959 (2009). 14

Audrey Bazos and Jessica Hausman, "Correctional Education as a Crime Control Program," UCLA School of

Public Policy and Social Research Department of Policy Studies (Mar. 2004), http://www.ceanational.net/PDFs/ed-

as-crime-control.pdf.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

6

a. Better fund and improve access to proven, cost-saving methods of education inside prison. Access to education reduces recidivism and saves money. A study in Washington State found

that for every dollar spent on correctional education, the state saved $12.15

Another study

concluded that a one million dollar investment in incarceration prevents 350 crimes, yet that

same investment in correctional education could prevent 600 crimes. 16

By some accounts,

fewer than one-third of men in prison have finished high school.17

Upon release, many of

these men are ill-prepared for the 21st century job market. Offering higher education in prison

reduces recidivism and increases the ability of the formerly incarcerated to support

themselves and their families. In fact, in-prison education has been shown to reduce the

likelihood of reoffending.18

The New Jersey STEP program is a privately funded partnership

between the N.J. Department of Corrections, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice,

and seven other two- and four-year colleges, to give the incarcerated an opportunity to attain

a higher education degree. To reduce recidivism and increase employment, the federal

government should support programs that allow people in prison to obtain a high school

diploma or secondary education degree.

b. Increase funding for effective drug treatment in prisons. While the Federal Bureau of

Prisons has recognized the importance of drug treatment in prison,19

only 20 percent of

inmates with drug or alcohol addiction receive appropriate treatment.20

This shortfall costs

taxpayers money: every dollar spent on treatment of substance abuse in the criminal justice

system saves taxpayers as much as four dollars.21

We must fully fund drug and alcohol

treatment programs that use best practices to combat addiction.

c. Work to end the use of private prisons. The U.S. is increasingly reliant on private prisons

that benefit financially from high conviction rates and long sentences—sending them nearly

$3 billion in revenue in 2010 alone.22

According to a recent study by the ACLU, for-profit

companies are responsible for 6 percent of state inmates, 16 percent of federal inmates, and

15

Steve Aos, et. al., “Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice

costs and crime rates,” Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006),

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-10-1201. 16

Emily Deruy, “What it Costs When We Don't Educate Inmates for Life After Prison,” ABC News (May 27, 2013),

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/us-fails-educate-inmates-life-prison/story?id=19204306. 17

“Staying in Jobs and Out of the Underground: Child Support Policies that Encourage Legitimate Work,” Center

for Law And Social Policy (2007), http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0349.pdf. 18

Stephen Steurer, et al., Three State Recidivism Study (2001), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-

ED465886/pdf/ERIC-ED465886.pdf. 19

“The Federal Bureau of Prisons Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Fiscal Year 2011,”

Report to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Congress (Dec. 2011),

http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/docs/annual_report_fy_2011.pdf. 20

Redonna K. Chandler, et. al., “Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice System: Improving

Public Health and Safety,” Journal of the American Medical Association (2009),

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=183208. 21

Id. 22

“Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration,” American Civil Liberties Union (Nov. 2, 2011),

http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

7

nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government.23

These private prisons are

paid on the basis of how many inmates they house per day, and some have contracts that

guarantee occupancy rates of nearly 100 percent. Perhaps not surprisingly, considering their

financial incentive to have inmates return, private prisons usually offer very poor re-entry

services.24

Further, private prisons’ interest in making profits for shareholders can incentivize

shortcuts in prison investment and maintenance, leading to substandard conditions for

inmates—while often costing more than government-run prisons.25

We should:

o Decrease our investments in private prisons over time. Our federal system

should join states like Kentucky26

in working to end our reliance on private

prisons and focusing our investments on our inmates’ safety and critical

services. 27

It is counterintuitive to fund companies that have a financial

interest in ensuring that our citizens are held behind bars. We should spend

that money on public education, social services, and appropriate programing

in the federal prison system to bring our prison populations down and

increase the number of Americans contributing to our workforce. We must

use commonsense ideas to reduce our prison population and hold federal

inmates in federal facilities.

o Better regulate private prisons. Until we can end our reliance on private

prisons, we should ensure that the civil and human rights of our inmates are

protected and that they are kept safe, fed, and provided services that will help

them re-enter society. Through current federal contracts, private prisons will

continue to house our federal prisoners and immigrant detainees for some

time. The Office of Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) was established to

regulate private prisons, but it has not been protecting our prisoners. The

OFDT needs sufficient staffing, funding, and regulations to ensure that

private prisons are meeting the same standards for health, safety, and services

that we require of our federal prisons. But even more, Congress must pass

legislation to ensure that the OFDT and the public have access to information

about what is happening to our federal prisoners and undocumented

immigrants held in private prisons, as this will allow us to adequately assess

the most glaring deficiencies in the current system.

23

Id. 24

Id., see also Grassroots Leadership: “The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections

Corporation of America,” http://grassrootsleadership.org/cca-dirty-30#introduction. 25

Richard A. Oppel, Jr., “Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings,” New York Times (May 18, 2011); D.M.

Levine, “What’s costlier than a government run prison? A private one,” Fortune (Aug. 18, 2010); ACLU, supra note

22; see also Aviva Shen, “Three States Dump Major Private Prison Company in One Month,” ThinkProgress (June

21, 2013), http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/21/2193261/three-states-dump-private-prison-company-in-one-

month/. 26

Tom Loftus, "Kentucky ending private prisons," The Courier Journal (June 25, 2013), http://www.courier-

journal.com/article/20130625/NEWS01/306250074/Kentucky-ending-private-prisons. 27

ACLU, supra note 22, see also Shen, supra note 25.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

8

d. Help inmates and their families maintain functional family relationships. Over 2.7 million

children have a parent behind bars.28

Research has shown that family support is critical to

keeping the formerly incarcerated out of prison upon their release.29

Having a parent in prison

creates emotional trauma, loss of income, and social stigma for children, and they require

support from the community to help them to overcome these hurdles. 30

These families need

our support. We should:

o Ensure that inmates are held in facilities as close to their families as

possible. The Federal Bureau of Prisons agrees that inmates should be held in

prison facilities close to their families—but they define “close” as within 500

miles, which is out of reach for many. Whenever specific public safety

concerns and capacity allow, inmates should be held in the closest facility to

their families. If this is not possible at sentencing, inmates should be

transferred to the closest facilities as soon as is possible. This is not merely to

improve reentry; it is critical to helping millions of children cope with their

parent’s incarceration.

o Provide inmates with domestic abuse and counseling classes. When a

spouse or parent is in prison, his or her family must adjust to fill that void. As

a consequence, even healthy relationships change when the inmate is

released, and unhealthy relationships can become more destructive. Inmates

who have exhibited or experienced violence should have access to abuse

counseling classes that have proven to facilitate healthy family relationships

upon release.

o Make prison phone calls financially accessible to all inmates and their

families. The Federal Communication Commission made a critical first step

this August by reducing the cost of interstate prison phone calls and capping

the “commissions” that telecommunication providers pay to prisons.31

But

we should now apply similar regulations to intrastate calls to ensure that

children can maintain relationships with their incarcerated parents and

prevent recidivism.

o Support programs that help inmates’ families visit prisons. We should

continue and increase funding for grants provided by the Department of

Health and Human Services that have proven to help inmates’ families

28

Steve Christian, “Children of Incarcerated Parents,” National Council of State Legislatures (Mar. 2009),

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/childrenofincarceratedparents.pdf. 29

“Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection,” Bureau of Prisons

(Sept. 6, 2011), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-893. 30

Jessica Meyerson and Christa Otteson, “Strengthening families impacted by incarceration: A review of current

research and practice,” Amherst H. Wilder Foundation (May 2009), http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-

Research/Publications/Studies/Volunteers%20of%20America/Strengthening%20Families%20Impacted%20By%20I

ncarceration%20-%20A%20Review%20of%20Current%20Research%20and%20Practice,%20Full%20Report.pdf. 31

Rebecca Rosen, “Making Prison Phone Calls Cheaper: Why It Matters,” The Atlantic Wire (Aug. 18, 2013),

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/making-prison-phone-calls-cheaper-why-it-matters/278780/.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

9

maintain close relationships with incarcerated family members. New Jersey

Department of Corrections has a successful program, funded by HHS grants,

that supports parents navigating the logistical hurdles that might otherwise

prevent them from bringing children to visit their fathers in prison.32

The Girl

Scouts Behind Bars program provides transportation and enhanced visiting

for girls with mothers who are in prison.33

Programs like these ensure that

children will know their parents and create the familial continuity that has

been linked to successful re-entry.

32

“Five Years Later: Final Implementation Lessons from the Evaluation of Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and

Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners,” Department of Health and

Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (May 2013),

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/13/MFS-IPImplementation/rpt_mmfsip.html. 33

Abby Goodnough, “N.J. Law; Behind Bars, a Program Brings Mothers and Daughters Together.” New York Times

(July 30, 1995), http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/nyregion/nj-law-behind-bars-a-girl-scout-troop-brings-

mothers-and-daughters-together.html.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

10

IV. INVEST IN RE-ENTRY

Transition from prison to community is rarely fluid, and formerly incarcerated men and women often

struggle to find employment and other institutional supports needed for successful reintegration. Hurdles

to smooth reentry contribute to a three-year re-arrest rate for formerly incarcerated people in New Jersey

of 55 percent, a re-conviction rate of 43 percent, and a re-incarceration rate of 31 percent.34

High re-

incarceration rates create a revolving door that undermines public safety efforts in our most impoverished

communities. To reduce high re-incarceration rates, we should:

a. Help formerly incarcerated individuals better qualify for employment. As we seek to

provide every American with the tools and resources to succeed in the workforce, we cannot

afford to ignore our reentry population. Individuals released in 2009 served an average of

almost three years in custody.35

Time spent in prison decreases on-the-job experience, social

networks needed for successful job placement, and soft skills such as punctuality.36

Skills loss,

in addition to the stigma that formerly incarcerated individuals face when seeking

employment, creates a negative cycle in which an individual who is unable to find

employment may return to criminal activity. To break this cycle, we must create better

employment prospects for the formerly incarcerated.

o Institute “Ban the Box” measures. While exceptions must, of course, be

made for certain crimes and jobs with particular sensitivities, such as those

positions of trust interfacing with children or seniors, public employers

should be prohibited from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history

prior to the interview stage of a job application, and we should encourage

private employers to do the same. Fifty cities and eight states, including

Newark, have enacted some form of “Ban the Box” measures to give the

formerly incarcerated a fair shot to demonstrate their qualifications and to

contextualize their criminal record when applying for jobs.37

In April 2012,

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recommendations

included Ban the Box measures as a best practice to limit discrimination

against the formerly incarcerated.38

34

Frequently Asked Questions, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections (accessed on Aug. 26, 2013),

http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/SubSites/OTS/OTS_faq.html. 35

Susan K. Urahn, et. al., “Time Served: The High Cost, Low Returns of Long Prison Terms,” The Pew Center on

the States (June 2012),

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/Prison_Time_Serve

d.pdf. 36

John Schmitt and Kris Warner, “Ex-Offenders and the Labor Market,” Center for Economic and Policy Research

(Nov. 2010), http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf. 37

“Ban the Box: Major U.S. Cities and Counties Adopt Fair Hiring Policies to remove Unfair Barriers to

Employment of People with Criminal Records,” National Employment Law Project (Apr. 2013),

http://nelp.3cdn.net/495bf1d813cadb030d_qxm6b9zbt.pdf. 38

Id.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

11

o Incentivize and measure innovative employment programs. We should

create an incentive program that fosters the creation of state- and locally- led

employment programs for the formerly incarcerated. States where recidivism

rates fall as a result of these job programs would be eligible for additional

grant funding.39

To reduce recidivism in Newark, we focused on helping

returning citizens find and keep work. Our Office of Reentry–one of a few in

the country–has demonstrated success in placing the formerly incarcerated

into jobs upon release. In our reentry programs, 60 percent of enrollees found

private, unsubsidized jobs.40

o Provide continuous career services. Establishing realistic, long-term

employment goals is an important factor in overcoming employment hurdles.

Prisons should provide inmates with employment counselors during their

prison sentence and as they transition back into society. Given each inmate’s

unique employment challenges, comprehensive wrap-around services can be

effective job placement resource. In a wrap-around program, a newly-

incarcerated individual is provided a career counselor, who identifies

programs they can take advantage of while in prison or jail.41

During their

incarceration, the counselor periodically checks on the inmate’s progress, and

at the time of release, provides an employment roadmap, which can be

shared with the inmate’s parole officer.

o Offer transitional job programs. Inmates frequently enter prison with few or

no job skills or find that their skill set deteriorates from disuse. Transitional

employment allows the formerly incarcerated to gain experience and

demonstrating a strong work ethic. In Newark, the Office of Reentry

established the Clean and Green program in partnership with the Newark

Conservancy to provide the formerly incarcerated with transitional jobs in

landscaping, urban farming and lot reclamation. Through supportive,

transitional work, participants hone basic job skills such as punctuality,

routine, and conflict management; they build references for future

employment; and they become better prepared for the job market. More than

600 Newarkers have been provided transitional jobs since 2009, and the

Office of Reentry will serve another 400 in the coming year.42

We should

fund rapid-attachment to work programs like this one in cities and states

across the country, and develop a mechanism to share best practices.

39

“Innovations in Community Corrections: Controlling Crime, Prison Populations and Costs,” National Conference

of State Legislatures (2010), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/pew/innovations.pdf 40

Interview with Ingrid Johnson, Director, Newark Office of Reentry (Aug. 21, 2013). 41

According to a report published by the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, nearly half of formerly-incarcerated

did not attend a job-training program, most commonly because they were unaware of the availability of such

programs or services. Christy Visher, et al. “Employment After Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three

States,” Urban Institute Justice Policy Center (Oct. 2008). 42

Ingrid Johnson, supra note 40.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

12

o Assist with ongoing civil legal matters. Following release, inmates need help

to resolve outstanding civil legal issues that may hinder employment and

prevent them from providing for their families. In Newark, we have

partnered with Volunteer Lawyers for Justice, the New Jersey Institute for

Social Justice, Seton Hall University Law School, and private attorneys to

help establish Reentry Legal Services (ReLeSe).43

The ReLeSe initiative

finds pro bono attorneys to help the formerly incarcerated with their post-

release legal issues, such as expunging from their criminal record minor

offenses from the distant past. Since 2010, ReLeSe has assisted more than

1,200 clients.44

o Provide state-issued photo identification to the newly released, and provide

ongoing access to ID resources for those transitioning. Individuals often

leave prison without the state government-issued identification needed to get

employment, open bank accounts, and receive services. New Jersey has

remedied this situation for discharges from state prison, but it remains a

problem in many states. Federal prisons, by law, must provide these services,

and Congress should conduct rigorous oversight and provide adequate

funding to ensure the law is being fully implemented. To help the formerly

incarcerated find employment and transition back into their communities,

state and federal governments should ensure that inmates have in hand the

proper documents to obtain state-issued photo identification before their

release, and keep them connected to ID resources in the years following

release. Our efforts in Newark have helped over 700 people obtain these

critical documents.45

b. Increase access to opportunity. After their release, the formerly incarcerated are subject to

invisible barriers: systematic regulations, policies, and practices that greatly restrict

opportunities for successful reintegration.46

These barriers substantially increase the

likelihood that they will re-offend and return to the prison system.

o Create pathways for smoother reintegration. We should restructure federal

provisions that prohibit non-violent drug offenders with felony drug

convictions from ever receiving public assistance, public housing, and access

to student loans. In some urban areas, between 30 percent and 50 percent of

people on parole are homeless.47

Access to housing, transitional assistance

43

“25 Accomplishments in 25 Months,” City of Newark (2001),

http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/userimages/downloads/25Accomplishments.pdf. 44

“Newark Reentry Legal Services (ReLeSe),” Volunteers Lawyers for Justice (accessed on Aug. 26, 2013),

http://www.vljnj.org/programs-relese. 45

Ingrid Johnson, supra note 40. 46

Jeremy Travis, “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion,” Urban Institute (2003),

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000557_invisible_punishment.pdf. 47

Nino Rodriguez and Brenner Brown, "Preventing Homelessness Among People Leaving Prison," Vera Institute of

Justice (December 2003), http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/vera/209_407.pdf.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

13

and education can greatly bolster the trajectories of individuals working hard

to rehabilitate and live productive, law-abiding lives.

o Increase funding for the Second Chance Act. We must promote and support

evidence-based reentry initiatives by increasing funding for the Second

Chance Act. The Act authorizes grants for prison-based re-entry programs,

community-based re-entry programs, and re-entry research and evaluation.

Here in Newark, Second Chance Act funding supports the city’s innovative

transitional job programs.

c. Reduce prison admissions from probation and parole revocations. There are over 7 million

people currently under the supervision of the criminal justice system.48

Between 1980 and

2011 the number of people under community supervision (i.e., probation or parole) increased

by more than 250 percent.49

More than 200,000 people are sent to prison each year for parole

revocations, some of which are technical violations.50

By significantly limiting revocations to

prison from parole and probation violations, we can decrease the overall prison population

without compromising public safety. Arizona and California have passed laws that financially

reward counties that keep former offenders who violate parole under community supervision

instead of sending them back to state prison. In the first year alone, the California program

reduced probation revocations by 23 percent and saved $179 million.51

At the federal level,

we should create financial incentives for states to develop similar policies.

V. SUPPORTING OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW

ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITIES

The economic hardships of the past five years have stretched local, county and state budgets, resulting in

a reduction in the number of law enforcement officers protecting our communities.52

Reports suggest that

a 10 percent increase in the size of a police force reduces violent crime by 4 percent and property crimes

by 5 percent.53

We must employ innovative policing strategies to bring communities and those dedicated

to protecting them closer together, and we must adequately staff, train, and equip our police agencies to

fulfill that mission.

48

James Austin, et. al., “Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment,” Justice Strategies (Apr.

16, 2013),

http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/Charting%20a%20New%20Justice%20Reinvestment

.pdf. 49

Id. 50

“The Science of Downsizing Prisons: What Works?,” The Sentencing Project (Feb. 2013),

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/The%20Science%20of%20Downsizing%20Prisons%20--%20What%20Works_.pdf. 51

“The Impact of California's Probation Performance Incentive Funding Program,” The Pew Center of the States

(Feb. 2012), http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pew_California_probation_brief.pdf. 52

“The Impact of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies,” United States Department of Justice (Oct.

2011), http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e101113406_Economic%20Impact.pdf. 53

Jens Ludwig and John H. Donahue, “More COPS,” Brookings Institution (March 2007),

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/03/crime-ludwig.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

14

a. Enhance grant funding for “Community Oriented Policing Services” under the

Department of Justice. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was

created to assist law enforcement agencies to enhance public safety through the

implementation of community-based policing strategies. The COPS Office is commissioned

to develop innovative programs that engage community members and local advocates in

collaborative local efforts. More than 500,000 law enforcement personnel and community

members have been trained using COPS funding in just 15 years.54

b. Reduce violent crime by expanding funding for proven law enforcement programs, such as

“Ceasefire.” Here in Newark, we launched the Newark Violence Reduction Initiative (NVRI),

New Jersey’s only “Ceasefire”-inspired violence reduction program. NVRI provides known

gang members with a stark choice: either accept help to find a job and support yourself within

the law or face swift and focused prosecution. In our first pilot area, fatal and non-fatal

shooting incidents have decreased 50 percent since November 2011.55

The program has been

successful in other cities, reducing drug crime by 39 percent in the first year in High Point,

North Carolina56

and decreasing youth homicides by 63 percent in targeted areas of Boston.57

VI. INCREASING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

In the hardest hit communities, mass incarceration has led to widespread family and economic disruptions,

gaps in employable residents, and distrust of government. The formerly incarcerated make 40 percent less

over the course of their lifetimes, including an expected earnings loss of nearly $179,000 by the age of

forty-eight.58

They also find it harder to stay employed, are less likely to marry, and are more likely to

suffer a range of medical and psychological problems.59

As a result, millions of children have grown up

without a strong role model. Mass imprisonment produces the social problems upon which it feeds.60

We

should prioritize policies that promote strong communities over incarceration, such as:

a. Encouraging political participation. In our democracy, voting is a right, not a privilege.

There are more than 5.3 million previously-incarcerated Americans barred from voting

because of prior criminal convictions, most of which are non-violent offenses.61

Nearly 40

54

“Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS),” United States Department of Justice (March 29, 2013),

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014summary/pdf/cops.pdf. 55

Newark Police Department Statistics (Aug. 27, 2013). 56

David M. Kennedy and Sue-Lin Wong, “The High Point Drug Market Intervention Strategy,” Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services (Aug. 2009), http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08097226-

HighPoint.pdf. 57

Anthony A. Braga, et. al., “Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire,” National

Institute of Justice (September 2001), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf. 58

“Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility,” The Pew Charitable Trusts (2010),

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/Collateral%20Costs%20FI

NAL.pdf?n=5996. 59

Todd Clear, “Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Communities Worse,”

Oxford University Press (2007). 60

Id. 61

“Voter Disenfranchisement: The Right to Vote,” American Civil Liberties Union (accessed on Aug. 26, 2013),

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voter-disfranchisement.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

15

percent of those citizens have fully completed their sentences, including probation and parole,

yet they continue to be deprived of their right to vote.62

This has created a politically

disenfranchised sub-class that has little or no power over their representatives but is

particularly vulnerable to their decisions.

o Pass the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 to restore federal voting rights to

the formerly incarcerated. After the formerly incarcerated have paid their

debts to society, they should have their right to vote in federal elections

restored. As they have satisfied all other requirements of full citizenship,

including paying taxes, they should have the rights that citizenship ensures

restored automatically.63

Not doing so is counterproductive to the

rehabilitation and reintegration of those released from prison into society.

o Support efforts to restore voting rights at the state level. Currently, 11 states

disenfranchise the formerly incarcerated even after these citizens have been

released from prison and paid their debt to society.64

This can make the

previously incarcerated feel that they will never truly be a part of their

community again, and makes it more likely that they will re-offend.65

Even

when states allow the formerly incarcerated to petition for their right to vote

to be restored, they must still jump through hoops that are all but impossible

for those in poverty to overcome. We must start a conversation with state and

local governments about restoring the formerly incarcerated people’s right to

vote.

b. Changing Census Bureau rules to count incarcerated people in their home communities. The U.S. Census Bureau currently follows a 1790 rule that counts prisoners as residents in the

district their prison is located. This causes over-counting in areas of the country with prisons

and under-counting in areas with high rates of imprisonment, affecting local, state, and

federal representation and allocation of government funds.66

When prisoners are held outside

their home districts, those districts appear to have fewer residents and receive fewer supports

and services than they need. The federal government should modernize this rule.

c. Restoring fractured relationships between community residents and the criminal justice

system. When members of a community do not feel that the criminal justice system is

working to protect them, they are less likely to cooperate with law enforcement. This

62

Id. 63

Mark Meredith and Michael Morse, “The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa”

(Jan. 21, 2013), http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/IowaFelons.pdf. 64

“Disenfranchisement of Felony Offenders,” Project Vote (March 2010),

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Felon%20Voting/felon_voting_rights_by_state.pdf. 65

Christopher Uggen and Michelle Inderbitzin, “The Price and the Promise of Citizenship: Extending the Vote to

Non-incarcerated Felons,” American Society of Criminology (2009),

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/uggen_inderbitzin_asc_09.pdf. 66

Peter Wagner, “Breaking the Census: Redistricting in the Era of Mass Incarceration,” 38.4 William Mitchell Law

Review 1241. (2011), http://www.wmitchell.edu/lawreview/Volume38/documents/2.Wagner.pdf.

Paid for by Cory Booker for Senate.

16

undermines public safety. Federal, state, and local governments must engage with their

citizens to re-build trust, strengthen communities, and ensure that all of us are safer.

CONCLUSION

The stakes are high. The issue of mass incarceration implicates the safety of our communities, billions of

taxpayer dollars, and the health and cohesion of our families. Our next steps will determine whether our

criminal justice system remains a vehicle for rigid punishment and waste, or becomes a springboard for

rehabilitation, opportunity, and hope. By striving for a more just legal system, by investing in proven

models that promote successful ex-offender re-eentry, and by supporting communities and law

enforcement, we can create a criminal justice system worthy of our nation’s unshakable foundational

values. We can, we must, do better.